Perception is becoming aware through your senses. They differ from every person; there is no specific measurement or calculation that can predict the way we feel towards a certain object, space, art work, or a certain person. Maurice Merleau-Ponty challenges the sciences, he questions whether science has the ability to deny or exclude human illusions. Merleau-Ponty believes that humans have relied too much on science and research to define our perceptions which has completely belittled our existence. Our experiences are not worthy when compared to scientific facts and numbers. Merleau-Ponty suggests that we remain in a “utilitarian attitude.”
We live in a world that has little value in our experiences through reality and we hold scientific knowledge at such high esteem, we often forget our own personal reactions to what is going on around us. This reality that we see is different through each other’s eyes. Human perception is how we understand the world through millions of sensations we encounter every day. How does our body mediate the experience of the world? Merleau-Ponty quotes, “laws and theories do not provide a perfect image of [nature] but must rather be considered ever simpler schematic representation of natural events… (Ponty, 43).” He is basically saying that science does not explain our everyday experiences but rather science holds knowledge through approximation. The weather forecaster says that there is an eighty percent chance of rain, but when you go outside there isn’t a single cloud in the sky. The day goes on and on but no rain, just a clear blue sky. This is an example of approximation through science. I think meteorology is a good example of science seen through approximation. Science can make a prediction that could be true, but it may turn out to be false.
Our three-dimensional space we live in that keeps its identity, regardless of all the changes going on in that space. Objects in space will have different perceptions from different angles. The light may change, or the object may move; “objects cannot be considered to be entirely self-identical…. We can no longer draw absolute distinction between space and the things which occupy it… (Ponty, 51).” Where the observer is situated plays a huge role on how view is perceived. Merleau-Ponty talks a lot about how painters are masters at creating new perceptions within a space. They recreate what they see. The painter may paint a lone tree in a barren landscape, clearly the painter wants you to see the tree; but the viewer, or maybe even the painter, may be more intrigued with the landscape. The painter creates the space and the objects occupying it, the perceptual experience is left to the individual. I don’t think painting is the only way to do this. Photography and film can create similar reactions. Helmut Newton does an excellent job creating experiential space through photography. He photographs fashionable women in unique, often confusing, environments that contrasts the whole atmosphere of the photograph. There is one photo where a man caresses a woman in an office. Her back is arched on the table while an old man kisses her. But in this scene, do we look through the windows of the office onto the facing residential skyscraper, questioning whether or not the people are seeing the scandalous sensual act. Or do we look in the mirror to notice the flash of the camera or the woman’s angled arm that reaches for the man’s head? This space is open for interpretation. We can’t make sense of the space, but our consciousness can draw conclusions to what is going on. The perception of space is not physical on a personal level. Space is a medium without a point of view and could be a space free of objects or it could be a space occupied. The atmosphere of spaces can only be explained on an intimate level.
Humans are obsessed with things. Objects give us reactions through a variety of senses, whether they are favorable or unfavorable. It could be a smell that channels a memory from when you were a child, a touch that leaves you bleeding, or an object could make you feel sad. Our materialistic nature has a personal significance. Now going back to Helmut Newton, a person may feel uncomfortable, stimulated, or confused and that is okay. “… people’s tastes, character, and the attitude they adopt to the world and the particular things can be deciphered from the objects which they surround themselves… (Ponty, 63).” We prefer to live in comfort and we dwell in environments that make us feel a certain way. When Ashley went to the cemetery to film her thesis idea, she mentioned that she felt uncomfortable. But when I go to cemeteries, I feel at peace; cemeteries are like a quiet park. Merleau-Ponty makes it easy for us to understand that science cannot explain our feelings towards certain objects and spaces. Even though we are all humans, we have extremely personal tastes that range from the color of their rugs to granite head stones.
Humans see themselves as the supreme being on earth. We see things that are our own and take what is not ours. Animality is animal nature, and being homo-sapiens, we are animals. Now this fourth lecture is focused on animal life and exposes how humans twist and turn nature to please ourselves. Merleau-Ponty quotes, “every object displays the human face it acquires in a human gaze (Ponty 70).” This reminds me of Heidegger’s ‘enframing’ term which is the obscured view of the world that humans have. We see things the way we want to see them, not for what it actually is. In this lecture, Ponty describes how humans project human characteristics onto animals. We see animals as machines or experiments for our own narcissistic needs. Humans cannot have absolute knowledge on everything, even though we pretend we do. It is impossible to be completely coherent, but we can be reasonable. We must acknowledge that the world is not unfinished and that as a species, we are learning new things every day. Humans are animals, we learn through trial and error; a never-ending cycle of learning.
“Other human beings are never pure spirit for me: I only know them through their glances, their gestures, their speech – in other words, through their bodies (Ponty 82).” We are constantly aware of other people; we judge them on their clothes, the way the walk, the way they speak, and even the way they stand. We are often more aware of our surroundings than ourselves. Humans only reflect on ourselves after we had contact or confrontation with another person. When we get angry, we lose control and forget how we act. Anger is a thought and is shared between two people. But once the anger surpasses, we reflect on how we acted. The mind and body are very closely linked but hard to examine. For example, when we do get angry, our actions and words used against another person becomes questionable as the anger subsides. It is almot like we lose control of our mind and body when we feel the anger grow within us. We say to ourselves, “why did I say that?” or “I should have said it differently.” These outbursts are hard to explain verbally; they simply must be experienced personally; we are constantly obliged to work on our differences to bring out what’s within us.
But we don’t grow up angry. We definitely don’t grow up depressed. We do not start out our life immersed in our conscious. We grow up with the influences of others. At a young age, we can already interpret emotions. As young as four months, babies have the ability to distinguish certain emotions through facial expressions. We then acquire reactions to these perceived emotions. Humans make you aware of yourself which allows you to reflect. You find your culture, education, and tradition through other people that point out your differences. Reasoning isn’t a personal phenomenon, we reason through interactions with other people. Each person has the ability to make up their own mind and may only recognize what they believe is true. The stubbornness within us can only be loosened through human interactions and reflections on yourself.
Artwork has the ability pushes us into the presence of the world through experience. Simply looking at paintings on a screen can’t give you the full experience of seeing the artwork in person in a museum. This is the same as architecture, you can’t get a sense of scale or feeling through screens and books that would reveal the actual experience of the architecture. Our personal views have a specific perspective on an object. For example, when we were freshman, we were required to hand draw perspectives of our conceptual designs. Everyone chooses a different perspective, a different horizon. We are not imitating the world, we are creating a new one through Chartpak markers and fragile velum. Merleau-Ponty says that we encounter everyday objects through paintings – a lemon, grapes, a table – but we question them. We look closer to try to understand why that object exists and ask questions as if the painter will respond with an intellectual response. We see things with perception, it is real, and it exists. But an intellectual response would explain why it the object exists and the necessary use for that object. Merleau-Ponty says that paintings allow use to see things for as themselves. We situate ourselves in the “direct perceptual experience (Ponty 95).”
I found it really interesting when Merleau-Ponty said that music was too obvious of an example of perception. “Here we are unquestionable in the presence of an art form that does not speak (Ponty 99).” Music is more than just a collection of sounds or a simply lyric. We can simply sit back, close our eyes, and transcend into this personal, intimate space. Our music triggers our emotions through memories and feelings that no one else can replicate. For example, when I listen to Jónsi from Sigur Rós I get transported into a world that is extremely personal. I like the term synesthesia, where your body becomes stimulated through multiple senses throughout your body. Music has this ability that other forms of art do not. Everyone has that specific musician they can always resort to, regardless if you have bad taste in music. I love how Merleau-Ponty’s last point to touch base on is music. It is almost too simple to understand perception through music.
I did have a hard time reading Merleau-Ponty’s last lecture. I do agree when he says that we approach science with a very dogmatic view. We hardly question things that we see and hear. Modern thought is very ambiguous. We believe what we see and hear without questioning where this knowledge came from. It is clear in today’s political climate around the world. We live on fallacies and unintelligent rhetoric. But when Merleau-Ponty says “… there is no sympathy for socialism in America… (Ponty 109).” I would have to say this text is getting outdated. Like, in 1948 I would agree with Merleau-Ponty. Simply mentioning socialism would have you sent to Russia with a tattooed hammer and sickle on your forehead, but it’s 2018, the world is far different from what it used to be. Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders, both members of the democratic-socialist party, have ignited a new political wave in America. I find this part of his writing slightly irrelevant. I am curious though, can some work of philosophy be outdated and irrelevant with today’s fast paced world?
Ponty, M. M. (2008) The world of perception. Abingdon, UK: Routledge Publishers.